Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think

"I don't think sensor size really matters"

I shot many of my most appreciated photographs with a €99 1/2.33 CCD camera.

"With good enough image quality, would you consider a built-in lens camera as your only camera?"

No. Because each type of situation requires different angle, perspective, etc. If the one lens to rule them all exists (e.g. full frame lens 14-200mm f/0.95), then my answer is yes.

"What is the minimum sensor size you consider appropriate for an enthusiast?"

The answer depends on what kind of enthusiast is he and how much is he willing to spend.

For point and shoot enthusiasts who cares about image quality, M4/3 would be good enough in the near future for them.

As a serious enthusiast who likes to have professional results, I would prefer full frame since that's what professionals use and the cost of full frame cameras are getting a bit cheaper every year. Full frame sensor is the future right now.

Actually, what Richard is saying is that an enthusiast is someone who views himself as an enthusiast. So it's also a subjective question as to what a person who views himself as an enthusiast thinks he needs as a minimum sensor. The question is actually aimed at us, because just about everyone who participates in these conversations, loves taking pictures and views himself or herself as an enthusiast to one degree or another.
I was thrilled with images I took with a high end compact ten years ago. Many are still stunning. As we progress and learn what is possible and as the equipment gets better ...and as our budgets allow... our views may change.
But I would still be enthusiastically taking pictures with my five mp camera of ten years ago if that was all that was available to me, and loving it. So it kind of depends on where each photographer is along the journey...

It isn't the Sensor - it's the whole package that makes the camera for me. Add lens and direct access controls. How else would eg a Fuji X10 still do a reasonable job?
Answering your question: dream camera? 4/3 and above please.

I am learning more and more making good light, or making good use of the available light is way more important than sensor size. Big sensors do make it easier. But my RX100M3 looks way better at 6400 than my Canon T1i looked at 3200.

In my silly opinion, who cares, the question is somewhat spare. It makes more sense if you ask, what size sensor would you consider as a minimum for an enthusiast’s only camera, his second camera, or his best camera? The which camera variable changes the answer. Such questions are of limited hypothetical range unless you also consider the availability of funds. If you have to scrape to put $400 together, a few of those 1:1.7 cameras would have to be considered a great treat, and very useful too. For an only camera on limited funds, I wish I could get a 12-megapixel one-inch camera with a fast lens. I think Sony overshot the 20-megapixels. It is a gimmick. Is there a camera that would work for some as the only camera and for others as a second? That market sounds pretty fat, yeah? I would nominate the LX100. I think 1-inch works only when you have another camera with a couple of fast lenses and excellent ISO 3200 performance. That way the fall off the 1600 ISO cliff is not so painful.

I think the question is nonsense. The term "enthusiast" doesn't really seem to have meaning related to sensor size. There are too many ways to be an enthusiast in the realm of photography. I suggest a better question is, "what sensor size/photographic device do I need to accomplish my goals?"

I have a friend who makes photographic art with her camera phone and a friend who considers his 5X7 film cameras to be the "real" camera suitable for serious photography. Moreover, the phone photographer also shoots film and full frame digital for her work. Serious, worthwhile work is produced in all these formats.

The device matters, but only as it helps you achieve the photographic result you want.

My ideal working setup would be to have a full frame body with a 24-70 F2.8
and an APS C body with a 70-200 with a wide angle in my pocket giving me in 35 mm terms 24- 300mm coverage

I was hoping at this year's Photokina Nikon would bring a replacement to to the outdated D300s. But since Cannon came out with the 7DII can the Nikon be far behind?

Why is nobody else bugged by m43 camera's mostly having a 4:3 ratio as well? The specification is for an image circle so it could also be 3:2 like the others but all current models are 4:3. I would pick m43 if it was 3:2 but as it is I find it hard to compose. In all the comments by lovers and haters I've read (and that must be over a thousand by now) why have I not seen one comment on this?

APS-C minimum for my main camera, but I confess I've got a 1/1.7" in my now very old travel camera. I voted 1" type, though, because these days the only real excuse for buying a 1/1.7" camera is price - and it's tough to be an "enthusiast" of any hobby if the primary motivator in the purchases you make is price.

But the RX100 series proved that you can get some seriously good image quality out of a 1" sensor - far better than anyone had a right to expect from a camera that small only a few years ago. If you consider the fact that most "enthusiasts" carry a "big" camera around on serious shooting days and a smaller one pretty much every other day, then I think you have to consider both sensor sizes.

The two issues that need addressed here are:
A) The definition of 'enthusiast'
B) Does 'minimum' refer to an alternate smaller secondary or backup piece.

If this is for the enthusiast's only camera then the sensor size requirement would be expected to be rather larger. ie minimum 4/3
If for a second, backup or "carry always" tool then the sensor size might be of lesser importance where overall size/weight determines the sensor size. ie minimum 1" or possibly less.

For the record - I currently have a u4/3 system and a LX5 (1/1.7) compact.
I consider the LX5 to be below my minimum I.Q. requirement and will eventually be replaced by something with better I.Q. but of a similar or smaller size/weight.

On my journey away from SLR/DSLR because of the weight, I sojourned at 1/1.7" & 1" and found them both wanting. In the last year, I was torn between m34 and APS-C mirrorless -- and went with the Sony A6000.

I'm on an android smartphone and the VOTE button is not working. I can select a certain option, but my vote is not recorded. It might be my browser, though ...

Maybe the question should be "What is the minimum sensor size you consider appropriate for the primary camera of an enthusiast?
Followed by what is the minimum sensor size you consider useable as a secondary device or for special situations for an enthusiast?
My answers are: APS-C for the first question, and "All of the above" for the second question.

Sensor size is important, similarly purchase capacity of people is of consideration. It is true for every consumer electronics devices. Even if I like an iPhone with 128gb capacity I have to wait for another two years. So people compromise with a lower end but sturdy model. As for present I am sending this email through a Samsung lower end tauch phone with moderate resolution and sub 1gb RAM. Sensor size is almost a similar issue, where a bigger sensor will invite costly accessories and their professional maintenance. If God is willing in a good day with good light condition every thing is possible even with a 1/1.7" sensor. One has to be in the right place at the right moment to get the dream shot. Yes, if you use zoom then image stabilisation issue props up to give you a steady photo. Bogger sensors are associated with very high ISO rating and are intrinsically capable of getting good picture at low light. I have used Canon SLR in puja holiday (Durga Festival) and did not use the inbuilt flash but auto setting for higher ISO and got good snaps. So this is in nut shell about the sensor preferences in my view.
People may beg to differ and we will accommodate their views too.

What's with the weird quotes, ruined a fine poll.

I would vote Four Thirds, but i don't think it's that perfect.

That wasn't the question ...

Think you might need one to look at you graphics and make it conform to normal mathematics. At the moment the numbers are 0.4, 18.1, 21.5, 27.0 2.5 0.0 and 7.4 which adds up to 76.9 (not 100% as you would expect)
Also the length of the bars does not fit the numbers

Not a very sensible poll - looks like it was designed with a specific marketing goal in mind. The truth is that a enthusiast would use what ever was appropriate for the situation and not worry about marketing or sensor size. Sensor size do matter but it depends on the situation one is using it for.

I have had many cameras over the past 15 years. My Canon S95 has a tiny sensor but can take great shots in the right conditions and provided you don't want to blow them up to room sixe. I have a Nikon D800 that also takes great pics but is very sensitive to lens quality is quite bulky but great for wildlife and landscape. Quite recently I purchased an Olympus OMD E-M5 this is probably the best compromise between sixe of camera and lenses and overall picture quality. These Olympus cameras are actually a complete revelation and deserve to be far more popular than they are although they are a bit expensive. Olympus being an optical rather than an electronics company are also great at lens design so overall a great system I'm using more and more for my passion, macro insectography. Currently I would choose micro 4/3 for the enthusiast, it's the most convenient especially for portability and durability outdoors, if you're a hiker, climber, traveller-can't get better!

I'm affraid this poll is contaminated by actual ownership.

The piece of technology in our hands is a tool only.

One can make great pictures with small sensors; and poor, boring ones with MF, and vice versa. If I am on the move I make better pictures with a small mirrorless m43 than with a MF with tripod.

Fun and a relaxed way contribute to creativity. The trend goes to connectivity, easy handling, low weight. And your back will say Thank You.

My smallest Sensor compact is the Samsung EX1/TL500, and i'm still happy with the IQ it delivers with that fast lens combination. I need it sometimes, because for 24mm wideangle shots, when i don't have the space for my NX1000, or NEX-5, for instance. But nowadays it's 2014 - and i wouldn't buy a new compact with a smaller sensor than 1 inch. I'm fine with APS-C, but the cropfactor limits some tasks.
FF should/must become cheaper within the upcoming years...think about a A7 light, for 700 EUR...hey Sony, are you listening? :-)

The tool should fit the job. This poll is like asking what kind of music should there be or what kind of car should you drive. The correct answer is whatever is
appropriate for the circumstances.

Am I missing something or do the numbers not add up to 100 ?

I never liked the APSC format. May be because i started photography with a film camera a range finder which was much lighter than current enthusiast DSLRs.

My first digital DSLR camera was the Canon D60 and the crop factor was a real pain for wide angle lenses. I updated to the Canon 5D as soon as it was issued. But the weight of the whole system always bothered me.

Nowadays, i find that the weight and size of MFT is the best compromise. But recently i got an A7r and i do really like it : it remembers me of my first RF camera (for weight and size).

The problem with the A7 series are the lenses : how big do they have to be in order to offer good performance in the corners ? I'm thinking of selling the Canon 6D : had i known about the coming A7 series, i wouldn't have updated the 5D. Now i have three systems and should get rid of one.. Probably the Canon .. We will see.